Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

In this interview (from Vlad Tepes) with Chris Knowles of the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), Michael Coren asks him a series of questions just to make sure Knowles isn't evil. The dialogue goes like this.

"Do you support violence in any way?"
"No"
"Do you dislike Muslim people?"
"No"
"Would you ever discriminate against someone because of their faith?"
"No"

Of course this really is the nub of the whole human rights nonsense that the ICLA is one of the chief promoters of within the Counterjihad movement. No one has ever given a good explanation of why we shouldn't discriminate against something that is demonstrably harmful, namely Islam.

Surely insofar as there is any merit in the ideal of non-discrimination, it must lie in the assumption that prejudice against other groups must be grounded in ignorance, in other words the mistaken belief that the other groups present some kind of threat. However, when the prejudice is grounded not in ignorance, but knowledge, rooted in careful analysis of the data (something we might call post-judice), and when that data reveals that certain groups really do present a threat, how is it praiseworthy to ignore this?

Presumably, the ICLA and Michael Coren are somewhat clued up about the threatening nature of Islam. (Or are they still at the "tiny minority/radical Islam" stage where mainstream journos and politicians like to hang?) Why, then, do they remain attached to the ideal of non-discrimination? Surely it makes perfect sense to discriminate against something that we can all agree is harmful? Governments already discriminate against, say, prospective visitors to their country based on their political affiliations. How is it a fundamental leap to go from there to discriminating against all Muslims (except that the political affiliation takes in a larger group)?

Is there any moral merit in treating, for example, all felines in the same way so as not to discriminate, even though some are friendly house-cats and some are man-eating tigers?

The whole episode is also a good illustration of why trying to play nice with the establishment doesn't get you anywhere. Chris Knowles played nice. He invoked establishment mantras like human rights. He used his real name. He did everything above board. And now he's unemployed.

We face a ruthless, corrupt, Soviet-like system, void of any moral legitimacy. Our resistance initiatives should be tailored to that reality. People who think naive good guys are just going to stroll up to the victory podium have been watching too many Hollywood movies.